Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Cancers · November 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background/Objectives: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare, heterogeneous malignancies that frequently present with biliary obstruction and require complex multidisciplinary care. Decisions regarding biliary drainage, future liver remnant (FLR) optimization, and major hepatobiliary surgery may influence perioperative risk and treatment eligibility. This narrative review evaluates the evidence supporting selective centralization and proposes a network-based framework that considers tumor subtype, procedural complexity, and access to care. Methods: The scope and principal topics were defined during the multidisciplinary COST Training School “Biliary Tract Cancers: Practical Approaches in Challenging Environments”, held in Barcelona, Spain, on 20–21 March 2026. Members of the author group conducted topic-specific PubMed/MEDLINE searches within their areas of expertise. Guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and relevant clinical studies were synthesized narratively. BTC-specific findings were distinguished from evidence derived from mixed populations. No formal risk-of-bias assessment or consensus voting process was undertaken. Results: Preoperative biliary drainage should be selective, with the indication, target, and modality determined by clinical status, biliary anatomy, treatment intent, and planned intervention. FLR assessment should integrate volume and function, particularly in patients with cholestasis or cholangitis. Evidence supporting augmentation strategies varies by technique and population. Observational studies associate higher procedural volumes with favorable outcomes, although patient selection and case-mix differences limit causal interpretation. Tumor-specific pathways distinguish perihilar, intrahepatic, and distal cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer. The proposed network combines expert-center coordination of complex interventions with regional care supported by shared protocols, defined responsibilities, escalation pathways, and outcome monitoring. Conclusions: Selective centralization offers an organizational approach to balancing specialist expertise with timely and equitable access. Prospective multicenter evaluation is needed to assess safety, treatment delays, access to curative therapy, patient-centered outcomes, and resource use before wider clinical or policy adoption.